1. A Civil Action was directed by Steven Zaillian and released in 1998.
2. The premise of the film is based around Woburn, Massachusetts. A major law firm in Boston has been approached for a while by Anne Anderson, a resident in the town who's son has passed away from Leukemia. 12 other children in the town have leukemia, 8 of which have passed away. Anne and other residents insist the water tastes "funny." Eventually and begrudgingly the law firm takes on the case as they are personal injury lawyers and often times do not yield profit unless they win their case. Financial burdens and the legal process ensue as scientists of all disciplines are hired to try to figure out what makes the water taste "funny" and whether there's a connection between the drinking water and a dangerous series of chemicals potentially distributed downstream at a tannery.
3. The sustainability problems that the film draws out are listed below:
Financial Burden of Court Cases: The film illustrates the difficulty for a law firm to take on a case such as this one because of the immense amount of proof that needs to be generated through lab testing, sampling and other evidence. It's hard for a court to rule there are connections between chemicals spilled and leukemia, there are too many steps in between. These sorts of cases remind me of patent liability cases between individuals and large corporations. Often times the large corporations will fight and fight until they have drained you of all of your finances and you have to settle out of court. The same holds true here, Beatrice Foods tried on many occasions to try to settle out of court with Jan and his firm, and eventually he just ran out of money.
Legal System: Our legal system seems to be a problem in and of itself, as described briefly in my first point. The lengthy and painful process both financially and emotionally is difficult to get through to reach a verdict. Often times people will just leave well enough alone, settle out of court and there wont be any clean up of the mess and people will continue to get sick. At the end I was so vindicated when Beatrice Foods got served with the Superfund Act from the EPA.
Worker Fear: The employees at Grace were really weary to say anything when they were being questioned because their lawyers were sitting right next to them. Luckily Al Love spoke up and said he saw people dumping chemicals, which led to another ex-employee speaking up. Associates working at the factory at the time though, were sort of cold toward Love. Worker fear seems to keep people from talking, although the people in the company are the best advocates for poor practices.
4. This film was compelling in more of a "Hollywood" fashion than the other films I've viewed for this course so far. Testimonies from affected families were really compelling, in particular the man who said his son died in the car by the highway. The images of the car parked on the side of the road on the way to the clinic were really moving to me, because I know that this is a based of true information, but also because every year and for many years now children die all around the world because of similar inflictions due to chemical pollution. The imagery in this film worked well in general. A series of lines I felt compelling was when Anne Anderson said that if her son ever got lost in the grocery store that they would meet in the back left hand corner and then when her son died he told her he would "meet her at the back left hand corner of heaven," for many of the same reasons for my last point.
5. The entire idea of the trial being costly was very drawn out. I understand how costly it was and in real life it is likely that awful and drawn out because legal disputes often are. However, this films intent was partially to entertain and also educate both of which were not served by the extended information as to how costly the trial was.
6. This film best serves audiences who are not really enlightened to a lot of environmental issues because its "Hollywood" nature makes it makes it easily accessible to many different audiences. I saw parts of this movie a really long time ago (5 to 6 years) and I knew and fully understood the issues as a teenager, before I was even really turned onto issues involving the environment. I think this film is easily accessible to many ages and demographics, especially if you are familiar with the industrial past of eastern Massachusetts.
7. This film could have been more educational if it had explained more at the end about the Federal Superfund Act and how its existence has helped mitigate these types of problems in America. I would have liked to see better explanation of particle-groundwater transport when the entire part about the particulates getting into water supplies was discussed. This film's main purpose wasn't so much to educate, but rather to entertain so I'm not sure that too much more information would have properly fit.
8. The main point of intervention or action I see is understanding a health issue common among a large portion of a neighborhood and finding the science to prove it. The hardest part is linking pollution to a health problem. Once that is established you have a case. If a community can team up with a group of lawyers or consultants like in this film, they can intervene on industrial actions potentially making them sick. On the other hand, Jan (John Travolta) should have been a little more savvy about the federal laws pertaining to this and brought the EPA in much sooner, because it was really only about money in the end, not about information or a plausible case.
9. This film made me really curious about the chemical properties of TCE (Trichloroethylene) because of the distinct scene in the movie where it ignites. While doing some research, I found that TCE is a VOC (Volatile Organic Compound), that has a particularly easy time leaching into ground water. After reviewing the chemical structure of trichloroethylene its no wonder its so toxic. Its main structure has three chlorine molecules attached, and I've learned in past courses that chlorine can act as a carcinogen in high doses. TCE was actually used in the 1930s as an anesthetic on millions of patients before they found out how toxic it was. (Science in the Courtroom, 2009). There have been studies by the EPA that suggest TCE causes several cancers other than leukemia, like cervical, liver and kidney. Due its volatility TCE can vaporize and become a harmful constituent in the air finding its way into our lungs. Aside from long terms effects such as cancer, TCE also causes facial numbness, dizziness, blurred vision, euphoria and confusion. Plainly stated, it is not a pleasant constituent of our "man-made environment." (EPA, 1992)
2. The premise of the film is based around Woburn, Massachusetts. A major law firm in Boston has been approached for a while by Anne Anderson, a resident in the town who's son has passed away from Leukemia. 12 other children in the town have leukemia, 8 of which have passed away. Anne and other residents insist the water tastes "funny." Eventually and begrudgingly the law firm takes on the case as they are personal injury lawyers and often times do not yield profit unless they win their case. Financial burdens and the legal process ensue as scientists of all disciplines are hired to try to figure out what makes the water taste "funny" and whether there's a connection between the drinking water and a dangerous series of chemicals potentially distributed downstream at a tannery.
3. The sustainability problems that the film draws out are listed below:
- Financial Burden of Court Cases: The film illustrates the difficulty for a law firm to take on a case such as this one because of the immense amount of proof that needs to be generated through lab testing, sampling and other evidence. It's hard for a court to rule there are connections between chemicals spilled and leukemia, there are too many steps in between. These sorts of cases remind me of patent liability cases between individuals and large corporations. Often times the large corporations will fight and fight until they have drained you of all of your finances and you have to settle out of court. The same holds true here, Beatrice Foods tried on many occasions to try to settle out of court with Jan and his firm, and eventually he just ran out of money.
- Legal System: Our legal system seems to be a problem in and of itself, as described briefly in my first point. The lengthy and painful process both financially and emotionally is difficult to get through to reach a verdict. Often times people will just leave well enough alone, settle out of court and there wont be any clean up of the mess and people will continue to get sick. At the end I was so vindicated when Beatrice Foods got served with the Superfund Act from the EPA.
- Worker Fear: The employees at Grace were really weary to say anything when they were being questioned because their lawyers were sitting right next to them. Luckily Al Love spoke up and said he saw people dumping chemicals, which led to another ex-employee speaking up. Associates working at the factory at the time though, were sort of cold toward Love. Worker fear seems to keep people from talking, although the people in the company are the best advocates for poor practices.
4. This film was compelling in more of a "Hollywood" fashion than the other films I've viewed for this course so far. Testimonies from affected families were really compelling, in particular the man who said his son died in the car by the highway. The images of the car parked on the side of the road on the way to the clinic were really moving to me, because I know that this is a based of true information, but also because every year and for many years now children die all around the world because of similar inflictions due to chemical pollution. The imagery in this film worked well in general. A series of lines I felt compelling was when Anne Anderson said that if her son ever got lost in the grocery store that they would meet in the back left hand corner and then when her son died he told her he would "meet her at the back left hand corner of heaven," for many of the same reasons for my last point.5. The entire idea of the trial being costly was very drawn out. I understand how costly it was and in real life it is likely that awful and drawn out because legal disputes often are. However, this films intent was partially to entertain and also educate both of which were not served by the extended information as to how costly the trial was.
6. This film best serves audiences who are not really enlightened to a lot of environmental issues because its "Hollywood" nature makes it makes it easily accessible to many different audiences. I saw parts of this movie a really long time ago (5 to 6 years) and I knew and fully understood the issues as a teenager, before I was even really turned onto issues involving the environment. I think this film is easily accessible to many ages and demographics, especially if you are familiar with the industrial past of eastern Massachusetts.
7. This film could have been more educational if it had explained more at the end about the Federal Superfund Act and how its existence has helped mitigate these types of problems in America. I would have liked to see better explanation of particle-groundwater transport when the entire part about the particulates getting into water supplies was discussed. This film's main purpose wasn't so much to educate, but rather to entertain so I'm not sure that too much more information would have properly fit.
8. The main point of intervention or action I see is understanding a health issue common among a large portion of a neighborhood and finding the science to prove it. The hardest part is linking pollution to a health problem. Once that is established you have a case. If a community can team up with a group of lawyers or consultants like in this film, they can intervene on industrial actions potentially making them sick. On the other hand, Jan (John Travolta) should have been a little more savvy about the federal laws pertaining to this and brought the EPA in much sooner, because it was really only about money in the end, not about information or a plausible case.
9. This film made me really curious about the chemical properties of TCE (Trichloroethylene) because of the distinct scene in the movie where it ignites. While doing some research, I found that TCE is a VOC (Volatile Organic Compound), that has a particularly easy time leaching into ground water. After reviewing the chemical structure of trichloroethylene its no wonder its so toxic. Its main structure has three chlorine molecules attached, and I've learned in past courses that chlorine can act as a carcinogen in high doses. TCE was actually used in the 1930s as an anesthetic on millions of patients before they found out how toxic it was. (Science in the Courtroom, 2009). There have been studies by the EPA that suggest TCE causes several cancers other than leukemia, like cervical, liver and kidney. Due its volatility TCE can vaporize and become a harmful constituent in the air finding its way into our lungs. Aside from long terms effects such as cancer, TCE also causes facial numbness, dizziness, blurred vision, euphoria and confusion. Plainly stated, it is not a pleasant constituent of our "man-made environment." (EPA, 1992)
References for 9:
Hazard Summary: Trichloroethylene. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2000. Web. 30 Sept. 2010.
<http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/tri-ethy.html>
Science in the Courtroom, The Woburn Toxic Trial. Science in the Courtroom, June-July 2009. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://serc.carleton.edu/woburn/issues/tce_toxicity.html>.